What's Happening

Troperville

Tools

collapse/expand topics back to Main/Musicians

AndyLA
topic
11:20:45 AM Nov 12th 2012
edited by AndyLA
Sorry, I didn't notice the entries are in descending order, so I just repeated myself.

Can someone please delete this?
tonagamu
topic
03:31:49 AM Jun 5th 2012
I'm liking what the descriptions that started in the alt rock section are doing... But can we maybe get some more effort from fellow tropers to either expand the artist descriptions or deleting them altogether? It just doesn't look consistent. I think the descriptions would be a great addition for the musicians page, but it would just look silly if it wasn't expanded for all the artists...

Yes, I know it's a lot of work, but if we all pull together and do it, it can get done.
Sen
08:09:15 AM Jun 5th 2012
I'll try to help.
Sen
08:34:21 AM Jun 5th 2012
Well, I failed.
tonagamu
12:13:58 PM Jun 5th 2012
Hey, maan, just contribute what you can. There's a lot of artists there and one person can't be expected to get descriptions for all of them.
AndyLA
09:43:51 AM Aug 17th 2012
I don't think it's necessary to add descriptions. That's the exact purpose of the opening text in every page, right?
InsanityPrelude
topic
06:59:24 PM Jan 6th 2012
edited by InsanityPrelude
Added Hurt, since I've seen them mentioned in several examples and I love their music, but I don't know much about the band itself so if we could get some Wiki Magic in here...
AndyLA
topic
11:08:32 AM Jan 4th 2012
Added a new page for the Kaiser Chiefs. It's pretty basic, but while I like their music, I don't really know much about them, so I just lay the groundwork there while listening to Employment so I'd know what to write for a start. If anyone will please to expand upon it, feel free.
movie007
topic
04:46:45 AM Oct 6th 2011
edited by movie007
Okay, I finally moved every artist on this index to the Music/ namespace, except for these three:

  • The Lonely Island — I couldn't move the page, since it's locked.
  • Big Time Rush — This is a TV series about a girl group.
  • The Cheetah Girls — This franchise started out as a book series. I'm wondering if I should've moved it to Film/ instead, since that was how 3/4 of the girl group got de-fictionalized. Perhaps, someone who knows more about the franchise can sort it out.

Since it does not appear as if we'll have an Actor/ namespace, I just decided to just move all the rest to the Music/ namespace .

I have removed all the ptitle links, in the process. It's possible I may have missed making a few entries into custom titles. Please just use the "customize title" feature, instead of pot-holing the entries to make them customized.

There are also a few entries with hyphens in them - and, since it's the only punctuation mark that can be used in titles, I linked them all to the hyphenated version. I hope that was the correct thing to do. Here are the following entries:

movie007
06:13:10 PM Oct 6th 2011
movie007
06:50:00 AM Mar 3rd 2012
At some point, we (maybe I) should move the above artists to pages without hyphens.
Xaris
topic
12:56:56 AM Oct 4th 2011
Do we really need to put EVERY musician under the music tab? I mean, something named after something else makes sense, but there's no movie called Anal Cunt.
tonagamu
topic
11:56:50 AM Apr 5th 2011
To make the "Alternative/Indie" folder a little less cluttered, can I add one for "Dream Pop/ Shoegaze"?
Alucard
04:38:16 AM Apr 6th 2011
edited by Alucard
You may not. Anything other than major genres would just confuse artist placement. Alternative just happens to be a large genre, there's nothing that can be done about it (though if there were a way to make folders within folders, then there'd be no problem).

As far as I can tell, we've hit nearly every major form of popular music. Aside from possibly psychedelic/acid/stoner rock, there's nothing left.

*
EDIT: On second thought, you could look into making an Avant-garde/Experimental folder, which till now I've lumped in with Progressive rock* . It might solve the problem with the bloated alternative folder more than a psychedelic folder would.

EDIT 2: Here's another possibility; of all the genres I found the most difficult to work with, nothing stuck out as much as Rap-Rock; I basically had no idea where to put most of them. I even had Linkin Park and Limp Bizkit under rock for a while, which caused some confusion and got Zebrahead place under rock as well (they're under punk atm); Brokencyde has been another problem in this regard. It never occurred to me to actually make a folder for it (I generally go with which they are more, usually lumping them under alternative). Sure, it's a fusion-genre, but it's a fusion of two very unlike styles; it could work.
Xaris
topic
11:37:19 PM Mar 18th 2011
edited by Xaris
Ok, I have to disagree with marking Mike Portnoy as related to Avenged Sevenfold. He's not a member of the band and was only featured as a guest on one album and one tour. Not to mention that he's also no longer a member of Dream Theater. Considering that we don't have a page for Portnoy himself and there's no real reason to give him his own page as he has not started doing any solo work, plus the fact that we don't have massive lists of "related" acts for guest musicians under Avantasia, Apocalyptica and Ayreon, I don't agree with marking him as related.
Alucard
05:32:39 PM Mar 19th 2011
You can't use Apocalyptica as an allegory; I tried to toss a hot tip next to them and their guests as well, which you deleted. The truth is, all of these rules you're enforcing were largely created by you. Unlike That Other Wiki, we don't have a styles-guide. So unless you plan to discuss putting one together with with Fast Eddie, there's literally no grounds to support your arbitrary order.

What do you have against a move as simple as this? It harms nothing and no one; I've said in an above discussion that there's no such thing as too many hot tips. If you want to hold onto that system you've invented so tightly that it compromises the convenience of the reader, then this discussion's over.
Xaris
07:53:04 PM Mar 19th 2011
edited by Xaris
I'm not enforcing any "rules." It's a matter of consistency. If we were to add hot tips for guest musicians on Avenged Sevenfold and Apocalyptica, we'd have to add them for Avantasia, Ayreon, Kamelot, etc. We'd have massive and confusing lists of people that aren't even members of these bands. Either do it for every artist on the index or don't do it at all is all I'm saying.

You, on the other hand, are calling my attempts to make things less confusing arbitrary for no other reason than your disagreement. Make a case for your side and tell me what makes Apocalyptica and Avenged Sevenfold so different that we need to associate them with artists that they aren't really associated with based on guest musicians.

Also, as I pointed out, Mike Portnoy isn't a member of Dream Theater any more and we don't have a page for him personally. You've disagreed with me listing Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson, so don't try to tell me that Portnoy needs to be listed himself.

This page is an index, so its purpose is to list off pages and make it easier for people to find what they're looking for, not to inform people of guest members of the bands listed. If you think guest musicians are important to note, do so on the pages of the bands involved.
Alucard
01:33:25 PM Mar 20th 2011
Go looks above at an earlier discussion; I've given a mildly detailed explanation as to why Apocalyptica is worth a hot tip. Also, if you look at Peter Gabriel's hot tip, you'll notice a link to Tony Levin, a King Crimson member without his own page. Basically, this sort of move has been done, and there's little standing in its way besides you.

Let me ask about your "consistency" argument; what is the line that makes one related artist "count" while another one doesn't? Even if we could put together a set of vague/inflexible, hard-fast rules, would the examples be self-regulated by the editors on a case-by-case basis, or do you personally plan to enforce such a thing? Unless you have a deep understanding of every single performer on this list, I don't see how you or anyone would be able to meaningfully/fairly police such a thing.

What you're arguing here it a losing battle: are you honestly interested in taking every single hot tip that gets created here to discussion to see why it merits its existence? I've rarely, if ever seen people explain the reasoning behind the hot tips they add, and I don't see why they should have to. I'd rather, if possible, let the editors and frequenters do as they please without having to be interrogated about it. Because that's essentially the natural extreme of what you're trying to do here.

And that last paragraph? Did I honestly just read you saying in a roundabout way that hot tips amount to clutter, or aren't necessary? I won't even go into how many things are wrong with that.

Anyway, if you read another above discussion, you'll see I've made a move to start listing related artist within their pages to better explain the hot tips, but it hasn't taken off yet (the Foo Fighters page is a good start, though). I've already done this with most of the Alternative section, so you can feel free to help out if you like.
Xaris
07:15:17 PM Mar 20th 2011
edited by Xaris
Your explanation for guest musicians is confusing and doesn't explain much adequately.

A related act is not a single member of one band that played in a guest position of another band. Again, this would prevent giant lists for bands like Apocalyptica, Ayreon or Avantasia. If I had noticed the Peter Gabriel/Tony Levin case, I would have most likely removed it.

If you wanted to argue that Slayer was related to Apocalyptica for similar reason to why we have Kamelot and Conception linked, however then I wouldn't argue. I wouldn't entirely agree, but I wouldn't argue. Shared band members that have caused otherwise unrelated bands to be related I think would count. In this example, Avenged Sevenfold and Dream Theater are not related as Portnoy's involvement with Avenged Sevenfold haven't brought the two bands together (and, in fact, is arguably part of the reason for Portnoy's departure from Dream Theater.) However, if you wanted to list Portnoy as related on A 7 X's page, then I would both not argue and would actually agree with the move.

Also, again, what makes Apocalyptica so special that we should mark their guest musicians, but not anyone else's? Why are their guest musicians considered related, but not Avantasia's or Ayreon's? Your argument is that its part of their act. Its the same with the other two bands. That is what I mean by consistency. You're telling me that I would have to police the page and keep things consistent, but yet, you wouldn't if you think your argument is in the right?

As for your claim that I called the hot tips "clutter," I did not. I simply stated that single members with less than a major amount of guest appearances are not enough to connect two otherwise unrelated artists. For this reason, if you want to link, say, Masterplan and Avantasia due to Jorn Lande's frequent and prominent guest appearances, then I could see your reasoning and wouldn't argue. Again, I wouldn't completely agree, but I wouldn't argue. Of course, if you want to get technical, the hot tips aren't necessary, but they are helpful in pointing out artists that work together.

As for what makes acts related and what doesn't, let's look at, say, Black Sabbath and Ozzy. This is similar to my Kamelot/Conception example in that a key member of both acts is critical to the history of both acts. This doesn't include side projects as I don't think I have to explain how side projects are related.

How about this, let's see what the other tropers think. If they agree with you, I'll back off. If they agree with me, you'll back off. I'd say we've both made out cases and we're not likely to get anywhere if we keep arguing back and forth.

Finally, I've noticed the move to start listing related acts and have made efforts to assist with it.
Alucard
03:14:45 AM Mar 22nd 2011
While that sounds like a nice thought, I'm doubtful it's going to happen; no one ever visits discussion areas, let alone happens across a Wall of Text this far down the page. Even if they do, the chances they'll want to chime in are even less likely. Nope, no chance of that happening.

All in all, give me a chance to get my ideas out. First off, I honestly don't care about Avantasia, Ayreon, or any other examples you may want to offer as an equivalent; I listen to maybe a handful of the artists on this index, and have no plans to expand my tastes to the degree that I'd be able to sensibly make sweeping decisions on how they fit here. If you have any problems with consistency, go fix them once the decisions are made. People seem too disturbingly afraid to move or change anything on this page, it seems.

Lastly, I'll answer your major question with another question: You're asking "What makes Apocalyptica so special", I'd like to ask "Why not?". Do you have a substantial reason why we should avoid hot tips in the way that you're proposing? Whether we like it or not, it's going to happen: people will list connections, they probably won't explain those connections or bother to create a "Related Acts" floatbox within the page itself, and I have no interest in forcing them to. Because that's basically what this is about: just another controversial edit.

To be honest, I find the extreme that I'm proposing (discretionless hot tipping) far preferable to your's. Instead of worrying over which ones count and which ones don't, I'd rather we merely accept them all (aside from the particularly dumb ones). Instead of burdening ourselves on policing something as harmless as this, let the hot tips be. We're not administrators, after all  *.
Xaris
12:11:38 PM Mar 22nd 2011
Ok, so you're saying that if I want my ideas to go through, then I have to personally police the page and make sure artists I don't listen to stay consistent, but you don't have to? That's what I'd like to call a double standard.

And I'm not saying to avoid hot tips altogether. I'm against excessive hot tips for guest musicians that otherwise don't affect the act they played as a guest on. I like hot tips for bands that are actually related. I add them where I think they're useful. Again, I stress that hot tips are NOT needed, but are a meant as a convenience.

I mean, I see your point for Apocalyptica, but since the guest vocalists are both very numerous in number and don't link the bands in question outside of their appearance on Apocalyptica's albums/performances, I am against linking them.
Alucard
02:43:23 AM Mar 23rd 2011
edited by Alucard
Please don't pretend that I'm making any attempt at antagonizing you; I never said you had to do anything. I'm only telling you the ramifications of your course of action. Is it wrong to assume that you'd be prepared to take on the task inherent with your idea? Because I don't have much confidence that you'd be able to convince anyone else to help you.

I'm not trying to toss a needless* burden on your shoulders, but it seems to me that you're the only one that cares this much (if anything, you're bringing the burden on yourself). It's not that I want to overload on hot tips, I just think this entire problem is a non-issue. You yourself are calling hot tips a convenience; a convenience's job is to simplify things, but your complaints are just complicating them (left alone, they could become one of this page's most useful tools).

I'm sorry, but I still haven't figured out the logic behind anything you've said so far. You already said "Do it for every artist on the index or don't do it at all", so can I take that to mean you really want to deeply analyze every single hot tip that comes by? Since it's obvious you don't, should I assume your stances are contradicting each other?

Please, give me some solid reasoning behind your ideas, or I'll have to ignore them.
Xaris
09:26:10 PM Mar 26th 2011
edited by Xaris
I never stated that you were antagonizing me. I do in fact think you are somewhat insulted that someone disagrees with your idea as, even in your first response, you've claimed that I'm trying to make "arbitrary rules," but that's beside the point.

All I did was point out your double standard. You claimed that the "ramifications" of my idea who require me to police the whole damn page, but yet, if your idea goes through, you don't have to. I have to analyze every hot tip, but you don't have to make sure that every artist is hottiped with every single guest musician, even if they only appear on one song.

Again, I cite Avantasia and Ayreon. You claimed that Apocalyptica should have hottips for their guests because its part of their gimmick, but then you turned around and stated that you don't have to worry about Avantasia and Ayreon because you "don't care."

I never stated any fucking intent to make sure all of the hottips are correct, but you're basically claiming that I have. I simply stated that a guest position isn't enough to connect two otherwise unrelated acts together. Most of these guest positions are only for one song.

As for Portnoy: HE ISN'T A MEMBER OF DREAM THEATER ANYMORE AND THEREFOR IS NOT RELATED TO THEM. WE DON'T HAVE A PAGE FOR HIM, SO THERE IS NO REASON TO HOTTIP HIM AS RELATED TO AVENGED SEVENFOLD EVEN IF HE WERE ASSOCIATED TO THEM BEYOND A GUEST SPOT.

You've blown this out of proportion. All I did was delete an edit I disagreed with and stated my reasons for the disagreement. You've put words in my mouth, ignored my reasoning, called me a hypocrite and have shown yourself to be a hypocrite in the process.

I have stated it multiple times and you seem to completely fucking miss it: I am not against hottips, I am against excessive hottips because this page is an index and is meant to show people where to go to find pages with actual information on them. If guest musicians are important, then list them on the pages themselves, but as they don't link the bands together, then they should not be hottiped on the index because THEY AREN'T FUCKING RELATED.
Alucard
04:04:12 AM Apr 6th 2011
edited by Alucard
Well I can't say I'm able to take you seriously anymore.

I'll give you some advice to live by: the longer people argue for, the more they tend to convince themselves they're correct, reaffirming an unpolished conviction or corrupting a good one; imagine two dense, inflexible objects bashing into each other. So either you calm down and treat your opinion more similarly to a mailable gel/clay or I'm disregarding you.

I'll try to explain this one more time: your intentions don't matter. Whether you plan to police this page isn't the point; the fact that you can whine about this one incident makes it obvious that this is going to happen again: people will come here demanding reasoning behind associations, complaining when their favorite artist doesn't get similar treatment.

Like it or not, this direction means constant policing. Ignored, cases like this will pile up over time. I don't want to deal with that and you don't either. So in simple words, let it go. Let this go now and you don't have to do anything; this entire argument never happens again. Let people make whatever connections they want and we can never look at this problem again.
Xaris
09:13:54 AM Apr 8th 2011
Buddy, you're the one ignoring my reasoning and the one who started this whole mess. Don't try to push it on me. Again, all I did was revert an edit I disagreed with and stated my reasons here to avoid an edit war.
Alucard
07:28:47 AM Apr 10th 2011
You're not even listening anymore, are you? Stop treating me like an enemy, everything you've said bleeds hostility. And isn't it illogical for you to admit to reverting an edit you disagreed with, then tell me I started this? You could've left that alone.

And it's not that I'm ignoring your points, you just don't have any; as far as I can tell, you're doing this because you hate being argued with. Everything you've said has amounted to "This counts, this doesn't", "I like this more" and "You're wrong" while I've been trying to point out to you that there's no way to consistently or meaningfully descern between one ambiguous relation and another (as we've proven here, band relationships are subjective). Your "points" don't have any over-arching reasoning behind them beyond an opinion; by this point I think you're continuing out of pride.

I already said earlier that without a style-guide there's no support for what you're trying to do. Reversing that, what is there to support my logic? Nothing, honestly, my path is just convenient; accepting all hot tips instead of arguing about them. Your path looks destructive and unprogressive to me.

Now let this go or you're going to find yourself doing this in the future. And if you're going to reply out of anger, you may as well concede (the "last word" is overrated).
Xaris
07:48:35 PM Apr 10th 2011
Let's look at how I opened this discussion:

"Ok, I have to disagree with marking Mike Portnoy as related to Avenged Sevenfold. He's not a member of the band and was only featured as a guest on one album and one tour. Not to mention that he's also no longer a member of Dream Theater. Considering that we don't have a page for Portnoy himself and there's no real reason to give him his own page as he has not started doing any solo work, plus the fact that we don't have massive lists of "related" acts for guest musicians under Avantasia, Apocalyptica and Ayreon, I don't agree with marking him as related."

What part of that is me saying "this counts, but that doesn't?" You're the one who can't see to get that all I did was remove an edit I disagreed with. You're the one who said "Apocalyptica doesn't count." You're the one who is ignoring that we don't have a page for Mike Portnoy as part of my reasoning. You're the one who has blown this out of proportion. Not to mention that you've failed to give reason why Apocalyptica's guests should be marked, but not Avantasia or Ayreon besides you not caring.

Further, what part of that is confrontational? I didn't get angry until you claimed that you weren't "antagonizing" me, which I never claimed that you were before then. Again, you've been putting words in my mouth with that and the claim that I intended to police the whole damn page.
OldManHoOh
topic
08:57:14 AM Dec 21st 2010
It might be a stub that deserves cutting, I dunno, but can anyone tell me what Creature Feature fits under? Wikipedia has nothing and the page here calls it "eclectic".
SomeGuy
11:51:07 AM Dec 21st 2010
Your inability to answer that question yourself pretty clearly indicates that it is a stub that deserves cutting. Put on the Cut List.
Alucard
topic
11:29:03 AM Nov 25th 2010
edited by Alucard
A project I'd like to see undertaken.

A few months ago I started throwing floatboxes to the side of articles after I noticed that we have hottips saying that these artists are related somehow, but we never bring up within the article how. The idea is to list the other groups and parenthesizing the respective band members that create the relation. I've already covered the Alternative folder myself.

These "Related acts" boxes should be reserved for artists who have a hottip link of some kind. You could add them to an artist who's related artist doesn't have a page to speak of if you like, but it would start to look Wikipedia-like; who wants that?
Sen
topic
02:41:01 PM Nov 22nd 2010
I personally am not planning any pages because I stubbornly cling to my belief that music began in 1964 with The Beatles, but if you make pages for popular musicians from the pre-Beatles era, which I guess means the pre- inter- and post-WW2 period, where would they go folder-wise? Pop? Jazz?
1000Lilies
topic
09:28:36 PM Nov 19th 2010
I kinda want to know why B2st (first album released Oct 2009) has a page while some more established Kpop groups [Super Junior (original group assembled 2005), Big Bang (debut Aug 2006), Wonder Girls (original group debuted 2007), SHINee (first mini-album released May 2008), and BoA, of all people (she's been here since 2000! TEN YEARS!)] don't. They've had plenty of exposure, so why not? Or are we just lacking info?
Micah
12:06:45 AM Nov 20th 2010
If you think they should have a page, that means you should make it. Works Pages Are a Free Launch, and the same goes for creators.

Note that Super Junior and SHINee both have pages already, though...
Alucard
topic
02:15:05 PM Sep 27th 2010
edited by Alucard
This is always bothered me: why don't we just throw away the comedy section? Comedy isn't a genre, so I don't see how they count as musicians in the strictest sense. Why should we devote a folder to people who don't entertain from a naturally musical approach?

Basically, they don't fit here. We should make a new section for them and toss it under Comedy Tropes. Then comical TV works with musical aspects can be added (I just removed The Goodies and Spinal Tap because their pages aren't about music).
theoneyoucallwe
01:26:53 AM Nov 13th 2010
Comedy is indeed a genre—although it's more of a subgenre. There's a metal (meaning its sound is metal) band out there whose entire premise is silly songs (and no, it's not SOAD). You ever hear that song that's all about Beer?

Yeah, that's them. The song is aptly titled "BEER!!!!", four exclamation points and everything.

And I have no idea what a "[natural] music approach" is.
Alucard
09:01:12 PM Nov 15th 2010
I'm pretty sure that's Psychostick.

Anyway, what I'd like to see done is to have an index devoted to comic/novelty musicians which can be a sub-category of Comedy Tropes and this page. Here, they attract people to add comics with a slight musical approach, or entertainers who use music for a comical approach instead of the other way around. We don't need that.

I'm not saying purge them all; just get rid of the ones who aren't recording musicians. People who are more likely to get a TV series instead of a record deal; people who are more acts than they are groups.

Once the non-musical artists are filtered out, we can disperse the folder and send the remaining groups to their actual genres.
Sparkysharps
topic
06:00:08 PM Sep 7th 2010
Would JAM Project really be considered pop? I know I'm reluctant to consider them straight-up rock, but classifying songs like Rocks, Fire Wars and Voyager as pop just seems... strange.
Alucard
04:44:46 PM Sep 19th 2010
Pop isn't really a genre; its purpose on this page is mostly to describe the state of the group/act in relation to the business. The Beatles, for instance, can as a whole be best described as pop, but their importance to rock music takes precedence over the enterprise they represent. JAM Project is most known for Anison music and soundtracks, setting them under pop.
Micah
topic
01:02:54 PM Aug 31st 2010
edited by Micah
Someone just made a page for Pig With The Face Of A Boy. Anyone know them well enough to classify?
Sen
topic
01:34:55 AM Aug 29th 2010
I'm thinking of writing a Shiina Ringo page, because I have too much time on my hands and I'm bored. The result might be a bit short-ish and not have many tropes (I can only think of a few). That gonna be a problem?
Alucard
09:46:12 PM Aug 29th 2010
edited by Alucard
Ask the thread above started by Kitsune Inferno. Bare-bones pages are apparently inadequate, so at least a few tropes listed and a reasonably in-depth description are in order.
Sen
02:51:51 AM Sep 1st 2010
Right. I'll put that off a bit until I can think of more tropes.
animeHrmIne
topic
09:56:02 PM Aug 9th 2010
I'm planning on writing a Sheryl Crow page. If I were to do so, what genre is she? Wikipedia says "rock, folk, and pop". I don't think she'd go in pop, but she straddles folk and rock pretty well. I think. I'm terrible at genres.
Alucard
09:30:05 AM Aug 12th 2010
I've always found her very folk-ish myself. One uncontroversial categorization could be country.

I don't think she'd fit in rock or pop very well.
dxman
11:22:37 PM Aug 26th 2010
Either rock or folk.
blind_dead_mcjones
topic
01:01:09 PM Jul 29th 2010
edited by blind_dead_mcjones
may i please enquire as to why the turbonegro link was removed seconds after a page was done for them?
Lordnecronus
01:03:09 PM Jul 29th 2010
edited by Lordnecronus
You wrote a page for Turbonegro? Strange. When I checked the page for Turbonegro, it was blank. That was why I removed it.

EDIT: And now there is an article. This is incredibly odd...
blind_dead_mcjones
01:05:15 PM Jul 29th 2010
writing takes time
Lordnecronus
01:11:59 PM Jul 29th 2010
So you put the link up before starting the article? That must be it, then.

I apologise for removing it. I wasn't aware you were going to start an article on it at the time.
Alucard
03:01:27 AM Aug 1st 2010
Normally, you're supposed to index a page after writing it to avoid this.

Fast Eddie often says that every page is supposed to look as if it's in its finished state, for the convenience of the reader. Red links at any time are frowned upon.
dxman
topic
10:05:17 PM Jul 14th 2010
With all the page reorganization, why is Wings still listed under the Beatles?
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
07:04:07 PM Jul 15th 2010
The Beatles and Wings have a member in common. And if we move one, we probably should move both: the difference in style between later Beatles songs whose authorship can be traced to Macca and the earlier hits of Wings is subtle...

But I would be happy to give Wings its own place in an index. I'm not sure which subindex yet, but I can guess.
dxman
08:42:35 AM Jul 16th 2010
I was only asking because the other bands with members in common have asterisks. For example, Whitesnake at one point had David Coverdale, Jon Lord, and Ian Paice, all former members of Deep Purple, yet it is asterisked. Same with Dio and Rainbow, who have Ronnie James Dio in common. Yet Wings was its own band and it's still listed under the Beatles.
dxman
09:22:41 PM Jul 22nd 2010
Moved Wings. Case closed.
Alucard
topic
05:22:09 AM Jul 14th 2010
edited by Alucard
So now that we're going with hottips, we're going to have to clear up a grey area: what are we to do with "Also featuring" and guest vocalists?

For example, Alice in Chains called in several new vocalists during the time after Layne died, and on the SAP EP, Chris Cornell and Ann Wilson sang back-up. Whether that constitutes an "Also see" is a tough one (they only sang AiC covers during that time while Ann and Chris only showed up briefly).

Meanwhile, I've linked Apocalyptica to its respective guest vocalists because guest vocals are a part of their shtick. I've also linked Avenged Sevenfold and Dream Theater because Mike Portnoy plays drums on A7X's most recent album.

I'm really not sure what to do with all the rappers who abuse "Featuring". They only did it for one song while the normal vocalist/rapper also sang/rapped. With Apocalyptica, they don't normally have a vocalist at all.

So I'm thinking that instrumental bands can get linked to a guest vocalists' regular band while guest vocalists won't be acknowledged if the act they're guesting with normally has a vocalist (unless they sang/played for more than a few songs).

Am I making sense here? No linking Seether to Amy Lee or Christina Aguilera to Lil Kim.
KitsuneInferno
07:59:39 PM Jul 14th 2010
Pretty much, but does that mean Eminem can be linked to 50 Cent and Dr. Dre, if he ever gets a page? And what of the Collision Course EP Linkin Park did with Jay-Z?
Alucard
06:28:07 AM Jul 15th 2010
Collision Course was a full collaboration, so I think it counts, and Eminem and Dre have a major history, but what kind of relationship does Eminem have with 50 cent? Apparently Eminem was the reason that 50 was signed, but there doesn't seem to be anything beyond that. Please explain.
KitsuneInferno
01:25:02 PM Jul 15th 2010
edited by KitsuneInferno
They collaborate fairly often, but it's not as often as I thought. Em's usually one of the executive producers of 50's albums and contributes a few tracks, but I think only around three or less per album. Going by that logic, Porcupine Tree ought to be linked to Opeth.
Alucard
06:50:16 PM Jul 15th 2010
edited by Alucard
I suppose there's no such thing as too many hottips. They are for the sake of convenience after all, so I think we can approach this with a lax attitude. Feel free to link the two.

I just hope the page doesn't become a mess.
Alucard
topic
09:55:49 PM Jul 6th 2010
edited by Alucard
I'm wondering how we should proceed with regards to Eric Clapton? Given that his career has been primarily Blues, his immediate placement seems obvious  *. The problem is that he's also associated with the Cream, and that brings up the question of whether Cream should be underlined beneath him since it's just one of his career's many projects, or if his simply being a member of the Cream means he should be the underline. If he's the underline, then I'll be effectively tossing the Cream under Blues.

That in itself isn't a problem, since they're Blues Rock, but if I make the leap of placing them under Blues, I'll be opening up the can of worms that'll allow the likes of Led Zeppelin, Aerosmith, The Rolling Stones and even AC/DC to go under Blues as well. When I folderized this, my hope was that the definitions would be unambiguous, and so far the only folders that have given us trouble in that regard are metal and rock (Motörhead, Thin Lizzy, Deep Purple), Hiphop and Electronic, and R&B and Pop (Paula Abdul, Christina Aguilera, Jennifer Lopez). With those ones, we could at least assume that the artists were "More one than the other". Blues and Rock on the other band are joined at the hip.

I can't help but think that we should just lump the two together  *

It's a funny situation we have here; normally, Rock was the dominant genre over the others (Prog, Punk, Metal), so while categorizing we would stick specialized bands under wherever they would best belong (for instance, classic rock staples like The Doors and The Byrds being sent to Prog and Folk respectively), while the Rock folder would be reserved for rock groups who exclusively play 70's and 80's style Hard Rock (Mötley Crüe, Van Halen, Guns N' Roses).

Now we have a genre even more dominant than Rock. For this to work, we need to have such a narrow scope of Blues that the only artists would can add to it would be highly focused blues artists with absolutely no tolerance for sub-blues (such as Blues rock, Blues Metal or even Blues alternative).

In the end, none of that solves the problem with the Cream (because if we separate the Cream from Eric Clapton, we'll be deviating from the formula this page works on).
Lordnecronus
02:33:43 AM Jul 7th 2010
edited by Lordnecronus
Hmm... I say we turn the "Rock" folder into "Rock/Blues", and use it for both rock (non-prog-punk-metal-alt) and straight-up blues, as well as fusions of the two. That seems to be the simplest solution from where I'm standing sitting. I don't know how well this solution would go down with some people, though, and some might think of it as silly that metal, punk and prog get their own sections while "normal" rock has to share its section with blues.

I'm also up for placing Cream underneath Eric Clapton; if this happens, though, does that mean that Faith No More (and, if/when they get pages, Mr. Bungle, Fantomas, etc.) would be placed underneath Mike Patton?
Alucard
03:10:54 AM Jul 7th 2010
edited by Alucard
And there we have another problem: He was also associated with The Yard Birds, so if Jeff Beck gets a page, where do we place him? And on that note, if Jimmy Page got a page, do we still keep him under Led Zeppelin?

I think we may have to employ [[hottip:*:hot tips]] indicating "Also see" or something to that effect. It may be a good way to clear up the controversy surrounding Body Count and Ice-T. If we did that, we could stop including solo artists under genres they don't fit in (for instance, Phil Collins being listed under Genesis in Prog even though he's a successful Pop artist as well).

This is all just speculation. There's a chance it could make things more confusing for the readers. They'd think "You mean I have to open different folders for related artists? EPICFAIL!!11!!". We use underlining for convenience, and it works.
Lordnecronus
03:25:49 AM Jul 7th 2010
edited by Lordnecronus
Hot tips would be a good idea, but as you point out, some readers might be too lazy to open another folder just to see related artists. But it seems like something we could definitely implement.

I'm guessing the hot-tip-related-artists-thing would go something like this —

— so every artist page would have its own individual entry in its proper section, even if listed in a hot tip as a related artist. And, of course, a related artist would not be listed in the hot tip until they had an article here, same as we can't put an artist on the main list until they've got an article.

EDIT: I just noticed it might clutter up the list a bit; luckily, it won't be done for most artists.
Alucard
06:10:34 AM Jul 7th 2010
edited by Alucard
Before proceeding with such a project, I'd like to get some consent from the other frequenters of this page. We can't just go making decisions on our own  *

I was hoping that if we do go with hottips, we could instead use Asterisks (*) to keep the pages less cluttered. I've always hoped that this list would be a rather clean page without any writing on it, but we seem to be heading in that direction.

Anyway, this hottips concept if nothing else clears up the problem with Eric Clapton, Cream, and Blues in general. Since we'll be keeping Blues around, we'll have to do as I said before and keep it extremely exclusive. Clapton will be sent to Blues while the Cream stay in Rock  *
KitsuneInferno
09:26:45 AM Jul 7th 2010
You got my consent. I thought Eric Clapton was more of a blues-rock artist than regular blues, but since my only source is The Other Wiki, I'm not one to judge.
Alucard
05:43:02 PM Jul 8th 2010
edited by Alucard
Anyone else want to get their word in?

If not, I'll be going through with this project by the weekend.
Lordnecronus
02:52:27 AM Jul 9th 2010
I guess it's pretty clear what my stance on this is already, but I'll say it anyway: you've got my consent too.
KitsuneInferno
topic
04:32:37 AM Jun 30th 2010
edited by KitsuneInferno
Can we cut the more obscure (yeah, yeah) and/or trope-less artists? And while we're at it, every instance of Crowning Music of Awesome and Your Milage May Vary that isn't elaborated upon. I swear, those two tropes are so ubiquitous, you'd think they were requirements to start an article!
Lordnecronus
04:40:07 AM Jun 30th 2010
edited by Lordnecronus
I'll go through and remove all the instances of Crowning Music of Awesome and Your Mileage May Vary that aren't explained. For trope-less artists, I'll try and add a trope list to the ones that I know. I can't guarantee total success with any of these, however.

As for cutting the more obscure artists, No Just No. Why would it be necessary, anyway?
KitsuneInferno
04:44:18 PM Jun 30th 2010
edited by KitsuneInferno
I'm sorry, it was just that inadequate (trope-less, piss-poor description, etc.) pages for artists you've never heard of is kind of glaring.
Lordnecronus
05:18:59 PM Jun 30th 2010
Could you give me a couple of examples of obscure artists with inadequate pages? I can recognise an inadequate page, but I'm not very good at identifying when an artist is obscure unless they're really obscure.
KitsuneInferno
06:51:29 PM Jun 30th 2010
edited by dxman
Meh, I'll just list most of the pages I find inadequate.

SoapMagic
07:30:54 PM Jun 30th 2010
I must take responsibility for the Ani DiFranco page. I have no idea why I created it. I don't even listen to her. Apparently, nobody else listens to her either. Please, cutlist it.
MasterInferno
08:07:07 PM Jun 30th 2010
edited by MasterInferno
Will try to add examples to Sigh and Darkthrone pages soon.
Lordnecronus
01:17:11 AM Jul 1st 2010
Hm, that's... quite a big list.

I take responsibility for the Black Flag page; when I wrote it, I was a bit ashamed of its state, but forgot to do anything about it. I'm actually surprised that's the only page there of mine.

I'll work on the pages for Atheist and Mayhem first; considering that they're good pages aside from the lack of trope lists, it should be easy.
Lordnecronus
08:44:26 AM Jul 1st 2010
Doublepost FTW.

I've added trope lists to Atheist and Mayhem; see what you think of them. I'll try and focus on the Black Flag page now.
MasterInferno
10:56:49 PM Jul 2nd 2010
Tropes are up on Sigh. Darkthrone will probably follow suit tomorrow, or the day after at the latest.
Alucard
02:23:32 AM Jul 3rd 2010
I don't see any reason to cut them because they lack tropes, because most of them do have legitimate information on them (a few of them are actually quite long). So for instance, Green Day bring up wicks in 118 pages, passing it into the Creator Overdosed level. Basically, it's a major page as far as musicians go.

I like to think of creator pages as Useful Notes sections. If anything, the question of tropeless pages being cut should be brought to the forums (I know that the admins don't like small pages, I've never seen them fuss over a tropeless page).
MasterInferno
04:29:56 PM Jul 3rd 2010
Darkthrone has tropes now. Please someone add some more, I'm having trouble thinking of them at the moment.
99.49.96.140
11:58:48 AM Jul 5th 2010
I was wondering if anyone could create a Maxwell and Nicki Minaj page since I'm already working on one, Girls' Generation
askchris
12:02:57 PM Jul 5th 2010
I was wondering if anyone could create a Maxwell and Nicki Minaj page since I'm already working on one, Girls' Generation.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
09:05:01 PM Jul 14th 2010
Added a few tropes lists (other than the REO one). Paul Simon, Katrina And The Waves, Randy Newman, Barbra Streisand, The Moody Blues, and Aretha Franklin are slightly improved.
Sen
01:26:09 AM Aug 29th 2010
I'd like to apologise for all the pages in that list that are my fault (Paul Simon, Katrina, Pavement, Mazzy Star, Bikini Kill, The Seatbelts). In my defense... nah, I have no defense. I just abandoned them and waited for Wiki Magic. Sorry! :(
Sen
05:00:31 PM Nov 13th 2010
I've added tropes to Yoko Kanno and The Seatbelts. I'll see what else I can improve...
bookhobbit
topic
08:33:24 AM Jun 17th 2010
Making a page for Relient K. They're a Christian Rock band, should I make a new folder for it, or do they just go under whatever genre they fit under otherwise, Christian stuff aside?
Xaris
08:47:43 AM Jun 17th 2010
Christian rock is more of an umbrella term to point out the band's beliefs, so they shouldn't be put under their own category.
bookhobbit
01:22:16 PM Jun 18th 2010
Okay, I'll add them to the corresponding genre, then. Thanks!
pagad
topic
06:33:43 AM Mar 8th 2010
What are we going to do about bands that belong to crossover genres? I can see this being a problem with (for example) progressive metal bands like Opeth and Dream Theater. Would creating an entry for them under both genre classifications be a problem, or would it screw up the indexing?
Xaris
01:15:31 PM Mar 8th 2010
We've already determined prog metal to go under prog, same with prog rock.
Alucard
07:30:11 PM Mar 15th 2010
edited by Alucard
The same with Tool and The Doors. Or Alice in Chains as an alternative band, or Ministry, Rob Zombie and Marilyn Manson as electronic artists. They're all metal or rock in some way.

Half this list is probably rock, so we go with whatever they more-so are. We could call Rage Against the Machine rock or rap, but they fit in best with metal.
back to Main/Musicians

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy